Temples, Politics and Leaders: From Nehru to Rahul 

Ram Puniyani
January 28, 2018

What should be the attitude of leaders’ visits to places of worship? The matter is very complex in a society like that of India where the hold of religion on the society has been strong and is becoming stronger. In many a Western countries where Christianity is the religion of majority the visits to Churches by most of the people has been declining and one does not hear much about this being a political issue at all. The matter has come to fore once again as Rahul Gandhi (RG), the President of Congress party has been visiting temples with great frequency be it Gujarat or now UP. In Gujarat where the Congress did remarkable showing despite failing to win the majority, many factors must have played the role for its ascendance, the major being the inclusive approach of Congress where the issues of marginalized communities, economically or caste wise, were taken up in forthright manner, as exhibited by allying with leaders like Hardik Patel, Alpesh Thakor and Jignesh Mewani. In addition RG sort of went on a spree of visiting temples. This time around the secular writers and intellectuals were not much disturbed by these visits; the people who got disturbed and criticized these visits were primarily from RSS combine, like U P chief minister Yogi Adityanath called it “hypocrisy and sham”.

Couple of controversies was associated with his Somanth temple visit; here someone advertised via photo shopped picture that RG signed in a register for non-Hindus while visiting the temple. Later it turned out that there is only one Visitors’ register which he had signed. His party’s spokespersons made it clear that he is a Shiv Bhakt, a janeudhari Hindu (sacred thread wearing). Our Prime Minster disturbed by his visit to Somnath spoke a blatant lie that “
"Today some people are remembering Somnath, I have to ask them - Have you forgotten your history? Your family members, our first Prime Minister, were not happy with the idea of a temple being built there," He stated at a rally.  The truth is that Mahatma Gandhi and Nehru both had opposed the renovation of temple at the state expenses and not the temple renovation as such. While RG’s visits are coming to the focus now most of the leaders of BJP are very explicit about their visits to holy places and make a great din about it.

When we begin from Nehru, he was an agnostic and very critical of blind faith, a great promoter of scientific temper, a value which finds place in our constitution as well. The major visits to temples by top leaders as such begin with Indira Gandhi in late seventies and early eighties. She probably was shaken by the Ayatollah Khomeini, a cleric coming to power in Iran and the rising influence of RSS here in India. She must have seen that the impact of religion in social life is increasing, and so such visits by her. During the decades of eighties as such religion did not remain a private matter as envisaged by our Constitution; by people like Gandhi and Nehru and a blatant use of religion in political arena began with BJP, dumping its original agenda of Gandhian socialism and picking up Ram Temple as the central political plank. This paid BJP rich electoral dividends in times to come.

The centrality of places of worship in our political space got intensified and the rightward shift of Indian politics, ascendance of religious right in form of BJP-RSS started going up. The attitude of different political formations was diverse. Apart from temple visits, the social aspect of Ramadan, the Iftar was organized by many politicians. Now the competitive religiosity took over by political parties, led by the BJP, for whose leaders carrying religion on their sleeves was most overt. Some religio-social programs like Karva Chauth were overtly celebrated by the likes of Sushma Swaraj, while Lalu Yadav ardently organized the Chat puja. Now these rituals are dime a dozen to be recounted here. In the era where the religion is overtly being used for political agenda, the visits to temples is a sub set of actions, being resorted to by even those who do not primarily indulge in politics in the name of religion. BJP ruled state Governments have gone further with the likes of Yeddyyurappa making huge donations to temples when he was CM and MP Government printing and publishing Hanuman Chailsa through its publications departments.

The need is to distinguish between social aspects of religion and ‘religion as a cover of political agenda’. The change from the times of Nehru where the practice of secularism by state was regarded as ‘not secular enough’, we have come to the times where the word secularism is being called as the biggest lie of India by the BJP leaders like Yogi Adityanath. In the campaign, which is picking up in Karnataka as a prelude to Assembly elections, the BJP leadership is presenting Congress as the anti Hindu party. Most of the election campaigns are being taken on the terrain of religion as witnessed in Gujarat, where the famed Vikas, gave way to Mughalia Sultan, Allauddin Khilji and the like. The lip service to the issues of people related to bread, butter shelter education and employment is being aggressively substituted by emotive issues related to religion.

It’s a tragic sign of times where the political terrain has been mixed with religion. It’s a terrible time that leaders of a national party like Congress have to visit the temples to wash off the anti Hindu tag from their foreheads. The temple visits are not soft Hindutva in any way. The popularizer of the word Hindutva, Savarkar himself was an atheist, focusing on politics in the name of Hinduism rather than religiosity. Nehru had said that his biggest challenge is to uphold secular Constitution in a society grip of religiosity, with religiosity dominating the social space today, what would he say?

Comments

Add new comment

  • Coastaldigest.com reserves the right to delete or block any comments.
  • Coastaldigset.com is not responsible for its readers’ comments.
  • Comments that are abusive, incendiary or irrelevant are strictly prohibited.
  • Please use a genuine email ID and provide your name to avoid reject.
Ram Puniyani
February 29,2020

Like most of the political phenomenon, even the practice of Nationalism is not a static one. It changes with the changing political equations of the political forces and assumes the expressions which are very diverse. As such the phenomenon of Nationalism has a long journey and various state policies in particular have used it for purposes which relate more to the power of the state ‘vis a vis’ its people, power of the state ‘vis a vis’ the neighboring countries among others.

In India there has been a certain change in the practices of the state which have transformed the meaning of Nationalism during last few years. Particularly with BJP, the Hindu Nationalist outfit gaining simple majority, it has unfolded the policies where one can discern the drastic change in the meaning and application of Nationalism in regard to its citizens, particularly those belonging to minority community, with regard to those who are liberal, and with those who stand with the concept of Human rights.

Our former Prime Minister of Dr. Manmohan Singh hit the nail on the head when he said that “Nationalism and the "Bharat Mata Ki Jai" slogan are being misused to construct a "militant and purely emotional" idea of India that excludes millions of residents and citizens. Former Prime Minister recently stated this in an apparent attack on the BJP.” The occasion was the release of a book, ‘Who is Bharat Mata’, edited by Purushottam Agarwal and Radhakrishna. This is a compilation of significant extracts from writings of Nehru, and important assessments of and contributions of Nehru by prominent personalities.

Dr. Singh went on to add "With an inimitable style…Nehru laid the foundation of the universities, academies and cultural institutions of Modern India. But for Nehru's leadership, independent India would not have become what it is today," This statement of Dr. Singh has great importance in contemporary times, as Nehru is being denigrated by Hindu nationalists for all the problems which India is facing today and attempts are on to undermine his role and glorifying Sardar Vallabh Bhai Patel. This is also significant as it gives us the glimpses of what Nationalism meant for Nehru.

As Singh’s statement captures the present nationalism being practiced by BJP and company, the Hindu nationalists, immediately shot back saying that Dr. Singh is supporting the anti India activities at JNU and Jamia and his party is supporting the anti India nationalists. They asked whether Singh likes the nationalism of the likes of Shashi Tharoor or Manishankar Ayer who are provoking the Shaheen Bagh protest rather than making the protestors quiet. Whether he likes the anti national protests which go on at JNU or Jamia? As per them there is no Nationalism in Congress. One more example being cited is the private visit of Shatrughan Sinha who talked to Pakistani President during his visit there recently!

Most of the arguments being used to oppose Dr. Singh are very superficial. What is being referred to; is not opposition to Indian nationalism and its central values which were the core of anti colonial struggles. While ‘Bharat Mata Ki Jai’ may not be acceptable to a section of population, even the book he was releasing has the title ‘Who is Bharat Mata’. What is being stated by Singh is the twist which slogan ‘Bharat Mata ki Jai’ has been used by Hindu nationalists to frighten the religious minorities.

Indian nation came into being on the values, which later were the foundation of Indian Constitution. Indian Constitution carefully picked up the terminology which was away from the concepts of Hindu or Muslim nationalism. That’s how the country came to be called as ‘India that is Bharat’. The freedom of expression which was the hallmark of freedom movement and it was given a pride of place in our Constitution. It respected the diversity and formulated rules where the nation was not based on particular culture, as Hindu nationalists will like us to believe, but cultural diversity was centrally recognized in the Constitution. In addition promoting good relations with neighbors and other countries of the World was also part of our principles.

JNU, Jamia and AMU are being demonized as most institutions so far regard the freedom of expression as a core part of Indian democracy. These institutions have been thriving on discussions and debates which have base in liberalism. Deliberately some slogans have been constructed to defame these institutions. While Constitution mandates good relations with neighbors, creation of ‘Anti Pakistan hysteria’ is the prime motive of many a channels and sections of other media, which are servile to the ideology of ruling Government. They also violate most of the norms of ethical journalism, where the criticism of the ruling party is an important factor to keep the ruling dispensation in toes.

A stifling atmosphere has been created during last six years. In this the Prime Minster can take a detour, land in Pakistan to have a cup of tea with Pakistan PM, but a Congress leader talking to Pakistani President is a sign of being anti National. Students taking out a march while reading the preamble of Indian Constitution are labeled as anti-national; and are stopped while those openly wielding guns near Jamia or Shaheen Bagh roam freely.

Nationalism should promote amity and love of the people; it should pave the way for growth and development. Currently the nationalism which is dominant and stalking the streets has weakened the very fraternity, which is one of the pillars of our democracy. Nehru did explain that Bharat Mata is not just our mountains, rivers and land but primarily the people who inhabit the land. Which nationalism to follow was settled during the freedom movement when Muslim nationalism and Hindu nationalism were rejected by the majority of people of India in favor of the Nationalism of Gandhi, Nehru, Patel and Maulana Azad, where minorities are equal citizens, deserving affirmative action. In today’s scenario the Hindu nationalists cannot accept any criticism of their policies.

Comments

Add new comment

  • Coastaldigest.com reserves the right to delete or block any comments.
  • Coastaldigset.com is not responsible for its readers’ comments.
  • Comments that are abusive, incendiary or irrelevant are strictly prohibited.
  • Please use a genuine email ID and provide your name to avoid reject.
Ram Puniyani
January 14,2020

In the beginning of January 2020 two very disturbing events were reported from Pakistan. One was the attack on Nankana Sahib, the holy shrine where Sant Guru Nanak was born. While one report said that the place has been desecrated, the other stated that it was a fight between two Muslim groups. Prime Minister of Pakistan Imran Khan condemned the incident and the main accused Imran Chisti was arrested. The matter related to abduction and conversion of a Sikh girl Jagjit Kaur, daughter of Pathi (One who reads Holy Guru Granth Sahib in Gurudwara) of the Gurudwara. In another incident one Sikh youth Ravinder Singh, who was out on shopping for his marriage, was shot dead in Peshawar.

While these condemnable attacks took place on the Sikh minority in Pakistan, BJP was quick enough to jump to state that it is events like this which justify the Citizenship Amendment Act (CAA). Incidentally CAA is the Act which is discriminatory and relates to citizenship with Religion, which is not as per the norms of Indian constitution. There are constant debates and propaganda that population of Hindus has come down drastically in Pakistan and Bangla Desh. Amit Shah, the Home minister stated that in Pakistan the population of Hindus has come down from 23% at the time of partition to 3.7% at present. And in Bangla Desh it has come down from 22% to present 8%.

While not denying the fact that the religious minorities are getting a rough deal in both these countries, the figures which are presented are totally off the mark. These figures don’t take into consideration the painful migrations, which took place at the time of partition and formation of Bangla Desh later. Pakistan census figures tell a different tale. Their first census was held in 1951. As per this census the overall percentage of Non Muslim in Pakistan (East and West together) was 14.2%, of this in West Pakistan (Now Pakistan) it was 3.44 and in Eat Pakistan it was 23.2. In the census held in Pakistan 1998 it became 3.72%. As far as Bangla Desh is concerned the share of Non Muslims has gone down from 23.2 (1951) to 9.6% in 2011.

The largest minority of Pakistan is Ahmadis, (https://minorityrights.org/country/pakistan/) who are close to 4 Million and are not recognised as Muslims in Pakistan. In Bangla Desh the major migrations of Hindus from Bangla Desh took place in the backdrop of Pakistan army’s atrocities in the then East Pakistan.

As far as UN data on refugees in India it went up by 17% between 2016-2019 and largest numbers were from Tibet and Sri Lanka.  (https://www.un.org/en/development/desa/population/migration/publication…)

The state of minorities is in a way the index of strength of democracy. Most South Asian Countries have not been able to sustain democratic values properly. In Pakistan, the Republic began with Jinnah’s classic speech where secularism was to be central credo of Pakistan. This 11th August speech was in a way what the state policy should be, as per which people of all faiths are free to practice their religion. Soon enough the logic of ‘Two Nation theory” and formation of Pakistan, a separate state for Muslim took over. Army stepped in and dictatorship was to reign there intermittently. Democratic elements were suppressed and the worst came when Zia Ul Haq Islamized the state in collusion with Maulanas. The army was already a strong presence in Pakistan. The popular formulation for Pakistan was that it is ruled by three A’s, Army, America and Allah (Mullah).

Bangla Desh had a different trajectory. Its very formation was a nail in the coffin of ‘two nation theory’; that religion can be the basis of a state. Bangla Desh did begin as a secular republic but communal forces and secular forces kept struggling for their dominance and in 1988 it also became Islamic republic. At another level Myanmar, in the grip of military dictatorship, with democratic elements trying to retain their presence is also seeing a hard battle. Democracy or not, the army and Sanghas (Buddhist Sang has) are strong, in Myanmar as well. The most visible result is persecution of Rohingya Muslims.

Similar phenomenon is dominating in Sri Lanka also where Budhhist Sanghas and army have strong say in the political affairs, irrespective of which Government is ruling. Muslim and Christian minorities are a big victim there, while Tamils (Hindus, Christians etc.) suffered the biggest damage as ethnic and religious minorities. India had the best prospect of democracy, pluralism and secularism flourishing here. The secular constitution, the outcome of India’s freedom struggle, the leadership of Gandhi and Nehru did ensure the rooting of democracy and secularism in a strong way.

India so far had best democratic credentials amongst all the south Asian countries. Despite that though the population of minorities rose mainly due to poverty and illiteracy, their overall marginalisation was order of the day, it went on worsening with the rise of communal forces, with communal forces resorting to identity issues, and indulging in propaganda against minorities.

While other South Asian countries should had followed India to focus more on infrastructure and political culture of liberalism, today India is following the footsteps of Pakistan. The retrograde march of India is most visible in the issues which have dominated the political space during last few years. Issues like Ram Temple, Ghar Wapasi, Love Jihad, Beef-Cow are now finding their peak in CAA.

India’s reversal towards a polity with religion’s identity dominating the political scene was nicely presented by the late Pakistani poetess Fahmida Riaz in her poem, Tum bhi Hum Jaise Nikle (You also turned out to be like us). While trying to resist communal forces has been an arduous task, it is becoming more difficult by the day. This phenomenon has been variously called, Fundamentalism, Communalism or religious nationalism among others. Surely it has nothing to do with the religion as practiced by the great Saint and Sufi traditions of India; it resorts mainly to political mobilization by using religion as a tool.

Comments

Ashi
 - 
Tuesday, 14 Jan 2020

If Malaysia implement similar NRC/CAA, India and China are the loser.

Add new comment

  • Coastaldigest.com reserves the right to delete or block any comments.
  • Coastaldigset.com is not responsible for its readers’ comments.
  • Comments that are abusive, incendiary or irrelevant are strictly prohibited.
  • Please use a genuine email ID and provide your name to avoid reject.